The Merchant of Venice

Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: The Merchant of Venice

he Merchant of Venice can be dated between At London, Printed by I(ames) R(oberts) for 1558, when all the major sources were Thomas Heyes, and are to be sold in Paules available and 1598, when it was entered Church-yard, at the signe of the Greene Tinto the Stationers’ Register and mentioned by Dragon. 1600. [Head-title] The comicall History of the Merchant of Venice. [Running- Meres. title] The comicall Historie of the Merchant of Venice. Publication Date Chambers describes Q1 as a good text, requiring The play was first entered in the Stationers’ little emendation. The title-page indicates that Register on 22 July 1598, by James Roberts, as the play had been acted at various times by the Lord Chamberlain’s Men and that its author was [SR, 1598] xxij° Julij. James Robertes. Entred for his copie vnder the handes of bothe ‘William Shakespeare’. The play was transferred the wardens, a booke of the Marchaunt in 1619 from Thomas Hayes to his son Lawrence. of Venyce, or otherwise called the Jewe of The Second Quarto (Q2), a reprint of Q1, bears Venyce, Prouided, that yt bee not prynted the same date, but it has been demonstrated that by the said James Robertes or anye other it was not, in fact, printed until 1619: whatsoeuer without lycence first had from the Right honorable the lord Chamberlen vjd [Q2, 1619] The Excellent History of the Merchant of Venice. With the extreme It was re-entered on 28 October 1600 by Thomas cruelty of Shylocke the Iew towards the saide Hayes, who had acquired the publishing rights: Merchant, in cutting a iust pound of his flesh. And the obtaining of Portia, by the choyse [SR, 1600] 28 Octobris. Thomas Haies. of three Caskets. Written by W. Shakespeare. Entred for his copie under the handes of the [device] Printed by J. Roberts, 1600. [i.e. Wardens and by Consent of master Robertes. 1619]; Head-title, under ornament with royal A booke called the booke of the merchant of arms: The Comical History of the Merchant Venyce vjd. of Venice. Running-title The Comicall History of the Merchant of Venice]. The First Quarto (Q1) was printed by James Roberts with the date 1600. The play was published in the First Folio (F1) in 1623, as the ninth comedy, coming after A [Q1, 1600] The most excellent Historie of Midsummer Night’s Dream and before As You Like the Merchant of Venice. With the extreame It. The play remained popular and was published crueltie of Shylocke the Iewe towards the sayd in further quartos in 1637 and 1652. Merchant, in cutting a just pound of his flesh: and the obtayning of Portia by the choyse of three Chests. As it hath beene diuers times acted by the Lord Chamberlaine his Servants. Written by William Shakespeare.

Title page to the first quarto ofA Merchant of Venice, 1600. By permission of Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, shelfmark Arch. G d.45 (2), title page.

Performance Dates of the bond for human flesh is both ancient and widespread, but the version closest to that in The play had, we are told, been performed several the play is found in Il Pecorone by Ser Giovanni times before 1600, but the first performance Fiorentino, (composed c. 1380, printed in Italian of which there is a specific record was given by in Milan, 1558). The first tale of the fourth day the King’s Men at Court on Shrove Sunday, 10 shows Gianetto travelling from Venice to the February 1605, with a repeat presentation two Lady of Belmont. Disguised as a lawyer, the lady days later. delivers Gianetto’s godfather from a Jewish usurer. Gianetto gives his ring to the ‘lawyer’ and back in Sources Belmont, his lady demands the ring of him. No contemporary English version is known, and J. R. Bullough gives the background on the main Brown suggests in a footnote: “Shakespeare may sources for the The Merchant of Venice. The story have been able to read Italian.”

Another work, only available in Italian, provides probably a pseudonym of Anthony Munday as details for the other sub-plot, Jessica’s elopement: The Orator. Each of Sylvain’s histories begins with in the fifteenth-century Novellino of Masuccio an anecdote, followed by a series of speeches on Salernitano, the fourteenth tale tells of a young questions of law, ethics or custom. History no. cavalier who falls in love with the daughter of a 95 deals “Of a Jew, who would for his debt have miser. (This text, which was placed on the first a pound of the flesh of a Christian.” Bullough Index of Prohibited Books in 1557, also contains shows various similarities, including his final the original version of the Romeo and Juliet story, insistence on his legal right. Zelauto by Anthony later adapted by Bandello and Brooke.) Bullough Munday (published in 1580) is also considered a shows many coincidences of detail, and notes likely source: in Book III, several details of plot, that there is no known intermediary text for character and even language are paralleled in Salernitano’s story. the play (including the usurer’s daughter and her The Trial of the Caskets is known from a variety marriage, and two ladies disguised as attorneys); of sources, such as: the Gesta Romanorum (printed indeed, Portia’s famous speech is especially close in Latin, c. 1470, with English translations to the judge’s pleas for mercy in Munday’s story. published c. 1515 and by Richard Robinson in Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta, first performed in 1577): 1589, is said to have influenced the characterisation of Shylock, as there are several verbal echoes. This And when he had said thus, he commanded to view presumes that Marlowe’s play came first, but bring forth three vessels, the first was made of it is possible that Shakespeare’s play was earlier. pure gold, beset with precious stones without, Shaheen analyses the Merchant’s large number and within full of dead mens bones, and thereupon was ingraven this posey: Whoso of references to the Bible (noting that none of chooseth me shall finde that he deserveth. Shakespeare’s 60 or so biblical allusions in the play are related to Marlowe’s 36 allusions). Shakespeare The tale also occurs in Speculum Historiale by was particularly keen to refer to books from Vincent of Beauvais (composed in Latin c. 1244, the Old Testament and to Jewish practices and first printed in 1473 and translated into English names. It seems that the dramatist used a range of in 1483), Boccaccio’s Decameron, Day 10, Story versions of the Bible but for the passage beginning 1, (composed in Italian c. 1353, first printed in “When Jacob grazed his uncle Laban’s sheep . . .” 1472, first translated into English in 1620) and at 1.3.70–89, he especially drew on the Geneva the Confessio Amantis by John Gower (composed Bible at Genesis 30.37–42 and the accompanying c. 1390, published by Caxton in 1483 with later note ‘m’. The latest definite source appears to be editions, e.g. 1532). the edition of Il Pecorone published in 1558. Many scholars (including Chambers, Dover Wilson and Bullough) have speculated that a Orthodox Date lost play The Jew, referred to in 1579, was “in all probability” the basis of The Merchant of Venice Chambers suggests autumn 1596 as the latest – even a first draft of it. There is fuller discussion possible date. Wells & Taylor also agree with this of this play in the section External Oxfordian date on stylistic grounds, and most editors agree Evidence below. The Jewwas answered by another and have accordingly placed composition in the play, The Three Ladies of London by ‘R W’ (? Robert mid 1590s. Brown argues that it was composed Wilson), published in 1584. From suggestions in between 1596–98. Halio, like the Riverside and Three Ladies, Bullough, following Small, argues Signet editors, opts for 1596–7, Halliday for 1597, that The Jew contained both allegorical and Mahood 1597–8. The Clarendon editors and realistic characters and dealt with questions of Dover Wilson, finding traces of rewriting, date usury and greed. the original draft from 1594. Wiggins dates this Another text, Epitomes de cent histoires (Paris play to 1596. Cairncross, much more radically, 1581) by the French writer Alexandre Sylvain, seems considers that the play could have been written as closely linked to The Merchant of Venice. Bullough early as 1589. believes that the dramatist either knew this text or read it in the 1596 translation by “Lazarus Piot”,

Internal Orthodox Evidence obvious possibility that the allusion may have been inserted into the completed play. Various possible allusions from The Merchant Halio is more cautious about the “Andrew” of Venice to events in the 1590s have been allusion in determining the earliest date of suggested: the play might relate to the 1594 trial writing. Instead, he justifies his 1596–7 date and execution of Roderigo López. He had been on the grounds that the theatre proprietors physician both to the Earl of Leicester and to the Francis Langley and Philip Henslowe separately Queen, and was accused of attempting to poison imposed “outrageously extortionate” bonds them. The passage at 4.1.133–7 has been seen as on Shakespeare’s company during that period. direct allusion to López, with a translated pun He supposes that “the negotiations very likely on his name (Portuguese for ‘wolf’); Gratiano’s influenced Shakespeare’s thinking as he wrote attack on Shylock includes: “O, be thou damn’d, the Merchant”. Since an outrageously extortionate inexecrable dog! . . . thy currish spirit Govern’d bond is integral to the original source, Halio’s a wolf . . . ; for thy desires Are wolvish, bloody, suggestion has significance only for Shakespeare’s starved and ravenous.” Malone suggested that choice of material, not for his handling of it. 3.2.49–50: “When true subjects bow / To a new-crowned monarch”, might allude to the External Orthodox Evidence coronation of Henri IV of France at Chartres, on 27 February 1595; Reims, where the ceremony Both the Stationers’ Register and Meres (Palladis was normally held, was in the hands of rebels, Tamia) confirm that the play was in existence by who were thus not “true subjects”. September 1598. Mahood argues that the entry in J. R. Brown regards neither reference as the SR indicates that the play was only just written significant for dating the play. He also dismisses and that the company did not wish anyone else to the suggestion that references to Shylock as a capitalize on its publication. “stranger”, and Launcelot’s badinage reflecting fears of famine due to the arrival of refugee Oxfordian Date “strangers” [3.3.27], allude to serious anti-alien riots in London in 1595. Contemporary accounts Clark suggests 1579, with which Ogburn concurs; mention the riots, but do not help date the play, he Hess et al. propose 1585 on stylistic grounds. argues. For Brown, the most satisfactory allusion for dating the play occurs in 1.1.25–29, when Internal Oxfordian Evidence Salerio empathises with Antonio: Oxfordians such as Mark Anderson (133–4) have I should not see the sandy hour-glass run found a number of allusions in the play which are But I should think of shallows and of flats, And see my wealthy Andrew dock’d in sand topical for the late 1570s. In particular, they link Vailing her high top lower than her ribs Shylock’s bond for 3,000 ducats with Oxford’s To kiss her burial . . . . disastrous investment in a failed venture in 1578. Andrew is italicised in Q1 as if the name of a vessel. Nelson (186–8) describes Oxford’s involvement In June 1596, the Spanish warship San Andrés in Martin Frobishier’s attempt to find gold. The was captured by the English in Cadiz harbour, venture was disguised as a search for the north- where it had run aground. It was brought back west passage: to England, as the Saint Andrew, and nearly ran aground on the sandbanks off Chatham. J. R. Not only was Oxford’s offer of £1,000 accepted, but he bought up £2,000 of Michael Brown concludes: “It follows that the allusion Lok’s investment of £5,000. Unable to raise could have been written any time after the first the cash, Oxford raised credit in the form of news of the Cadiz action reached the Court on 30 a bond. July 1596,” though not necessarily immediately afterwards. Brown states (with Mahood in Frobisher returned on 25 September and hurried agreement) that the play must therefore “have to London with samples which turned out to be been written in its present form not earlier than iron pyrite, the worthless “fool’s gold”. Nelson August 1596.” Brown, however, then allows the continues (187):

Oxford had not a penny to show for his £3,000 reflects Don John’s impetuosity. As for the next investment, and 29 September [1578], the part of her facetious comment: “for he doth due-date of his bond, was at hand. Suspicion nothing but talk of his horse, and he makes it a of fraud lighted upon Michael Lok. great appropriation to his own good parts that he can shoe him himself”, Holland quotes Motley’s Oxford paid some of the debt but Lok was sent to Rise of the Dutch Republic: “through the country the Fleet Prison. It is not known if Oxford ever round there was none who could break a lance repaid the whole debt. During this period (in fact or ride at the ring like him, and … in taming for about 20 years from 1570), Oxford employed unmanageable horses he was celebrated for his Michael Lok’s nephew as one of his secretaries. audacity and skill”. Don John became Governor Because the Jew is not named in the sources of the Netherlands at the end of 1576 and died in and, in the play, is frequently called ‘The Jew’, 1578. Oxfordians believe that the name ‘Shylock’ is a reference to Michael Lok. Furthermore, Oxford (b) The County Palatine (1.2..44–51) might himself had dealings with the Jews in Venice: be identified with many palatinates – districts Nelson (213) quotes a letter from Henry Howard with royal privileges – in Europe at this time that Oxford claimed: “the Iewes of Italy wold tell (including the diocese of Durham in England). another tale, and put both Mathewe, Marke and Halio argues that this suitor is not the Count Iohne to sylenc[e].” Palatine of the Rhine (the Palatinate), since a Oxfordians find that further links between German is later described satirically. Holland Oxford’s situation in the late 1570s, and Portia’s suggests that he alludes to the Archduke Matthias, unflattering descriptions of her suitors (1.2.35– the son of the Emperor Maximilian, whom the 95), present more than mere national stereotypes. rebel States-General of the Netherlands appointed Samuel Johnson once commented: Governor-General in the autumn of 1577, when I am always inclined to believe, that he was only twenty. He made a state entry into Shakespeare has more allusions to particular Brussels on 18 January 1578, but and soon proved facts and persons than his readers generally to be ineffectual. Portia’s describes this suitor: “[h] suppose … Perhaps in this enumeration of e doth nothing but frown … hears merry tales Portia’s suitors, there may be some covert and smiles not, (… being so full of unmannerly allusion to those of Elizabeth. sadness in his youth)” (1.2.45–49). This accurately fits the personality of Matthias’s brother, the Many details attributed to the suitors reflect Emperor Rudolf II, a “gloomy solitary”, “subject characteristics of four international figures, well to hallucinations and long bouts of melancholy”. known to the English Court by reputation, if not personally, in the second half of the 1570s; (c) The French Lord, Monsieur Le Bon one was the main suitor of Queen Elizabeth and (1.2.52–62) can easily be identified with François, all of them were involved at a high level in the Duc d’Alençon, who also nursed ambitions of Netherlands campaigns in and after 1577. The power in the Netherlands – a goal eventually following biographical details derive from Kamen: achieved when in 1582 he became Duke of (a) The Neapolitan Prince (1.2.38–43) has Brabant and was named ‘prince and lord of the been identified with Don John of Austria by Netherlands’ by the anti-Spanish rebels. More Holland. Don John, half-brother to Philip II of significantly, however, he was the main candidate Spain, was also King of Naples; and Naples was for marriage to Queen Elizabeth through most of Don John’s base through the middle of that decade. the 1570s and, as the next brother of the French His courage, inspiring leadership and victory king, he had the traditional title ‘Monsieur’; the over the Turks at Lepanto in 1571 established his term, says Conyers Read, was generally used in status as a leading figure of the sixteenth century. England at the time to designate Alençon (see Both before and after Lepanto Philip, with some chapter 8, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, note justification, had reservations about Don John’s 2 for a similar identification). Frieda (345–7) youthful lack of judgement. Portia’s description of describes how Alençon came to England for two the Neapolitan prince as a “colt indeed” (1.2.39) weeks in August 1579, and the Queen called him

“her frog”. His final personal attempt at a marital Noemi Magri’s comparison of the play with alliance came in November 1581. In February Venetian legal procedures is given at the end of 1582, Alençon finally parted from Elizabeth and this chapter. She has also explored (in ‘Belmont took up his ducal duties in Antwerp. and Thereabouts’) the astonishing knowledge of Venetian topography shown in the play, pointing to (d) Falconbridge, the young baron of early composition and Oxfordian authorship. She England (ll.63–73) is described as unable to demonstrates that Portia’s Villa at Belmont should speak foreign languages and “oddly … suited”; be identified with the Villa Foscari, situated along in his pick-and-mix of European fashions, he has an inland waterway ten miles from Venice and contemporary parallels. Brown quotes Thomas with a monastery two miles away. This villa also Nashe in 1594, but there is an earlier analogue; links to a reference by Nerissa about “a Venetian, in 1577 William Harrison, in his Description of a scholar and soldier, that came hither in the England, wrote: “Today ... the Spanish guise, company of the Marquis of Montferrat” (1.2.109– tomorrow the French toies, [ere] long …the high 11). An important visit had been paid to this villa Alman fashion, by and by the Turkish manner, in July 1574 by Henri III, returning to France for … otherwise the Morisco gowns, the Barbarian his coronation and accompanied by a number of sleeves … you shall not see anie so disguised as dignitaries, including Guglielmo Gonzaga, Duke are my countriemen of England.” There does not of Mantua. This Duke had inherited the title of seem to have been any contemporary example of Marquis of Montferrat from his father in 1550. that name, but Halio notes that the description In 1574, the state of Montferrat was elevated to a is in keeping with his fictional namesake in King Duchy by the then German Emperor Maximilian John. II. This information again strongly suggests Oxfordian authorship and knowledge of Italian (e) The young German, the Duke of states. Oxford was presented to King Henry III Saxony’s nephew (1.2.80–1) is to be identified in Paris in January 1575 and would have passed with Prince John Casimir; he was born in 1543, close to the Villa Foscari in November 1575 when and became Count Palatine (of the Rhineland- travelling from Venice to Padua. Pfalz) in 1576. Portia plans to make this suitor choose the wrong casket by having Nerissa External Oxfordian Evidence place on it a glass of Rhenish wine (ll.92–95) – wine from the Palatinate – and the historical In 1578 or 1579, a play entitled The Jew was Casimir was the Duke of Saxony’s son-in-law. in performance at the Bull Inn, London. The As a Calvinist, he was active in the political and evidence for this lost play is in Stephen Gosson’s religious clashes of mainland Europe. Elizabeth The School of Abuse, published in 1579: had supplied money since 1567 for Casimir’s German mercenaries to support the Huguenots The Iew and Ptolome, shown at the Bull, and in the French civil wars. Towards the end of 1577, one representing the greedinesse of worldly she suggested that Prince Casimir should arrange chusers, and bloody mindes of Usurers; the a Protestant league in Germany. His envoy arrived other very lively describing how seditious estates . . . are overthrown, niether with in England in February 1578, reporting Casimir’s humrous gesture woulnding the eye, nor with desire to help. Elizabeth decided to use him to slouenly talke hurting the eares of the chast fight her battles in the Netherlands, where he had hearers. already conducted two campaigns. In mid-1578 Gosson’s summary seems to indicate that the two she sent £40,000 to cover his initial expenses in major plots in The Merchant – the choice of caskets raising an army, and the export of large quantities and the Shylock bond – were already combined of munitions was authorised; in the late summer in this early play. While many earlier orthodox Casimir duly invaded the Netherlands. Within a commentators, as we have seen, thought this lost year or so, according to one source, he received play was probably the source; some commentators, the Order of the Garter and was banqueted by the e.g. Clark, Holland and Ogburn, propose that City of London. The Jew was, in fact, the original version of The Merchant of Venice.

Ogburn offers two further pieces of evidence Oxford and Philip Sidney (whose side he took). for a 1579 date. Firstly, in that year, Edmund Finally, Oxford knew Alençon – probably from Spenser ended a letter to Gabriel Harvey with the his presentation at the French Court in January words: “He that is fast bound unto thee in more 1575 and certainly at the English Court in 1579 obligations than any merchant in Italy to any Jew (Nelson, 202–3). there.” Ogburn adds the comment of the editor of Harvey’s correspondence: “This is an evident The Italian Legal System in The allusion to the play The Jew, … the precursor of Merchant of Venice Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice.” Secondly, like Holland, he thinks it “likely” that a play called It is widely accepted that Shakespeare “displays a The history of Portio and demorantes, enacted knowledge of Venice and the Venetian dominions at Whitehall by Sussex’s Men on 2 February deeper than that which he appeared to have 1580 (Chambers, ES, iv, 97), was The Jew under possessed about any other Italian state” (H. F. a different title. He suggests that “Portio” is Brown, 160). In The Merchant of Venice, the a mistake for “Portia”, and “demorantes” a treatment of the Italian and Venetian legal systems mistranscription of “the merchants”. On the other has not been given satisfactory explanation hand, “demorantes” (Latin, ‘delaying’ or ‘those from the point of view of either Shakespeare’s who delay’) which in Old French is ‘demourants’, source of knowledge, or the interpretation of (modern spelling: demurrant), comes to mean the legal terms themselves and his references to ‘those who demur’ (OED). Portio and demorantes Venetian institutions. Various commentators have might therefore have been a short comedy played mentioned other legal principles which are specific at Court and dealing with Elizabeth’s suitors. to Italian and Venetian Law but not the English The play’s sources were available as early as legal system. Thus a deeper inquiry is necessary 1558, so a date for the original version in the late to establish the level of Shakespeare’s accuracy in 1570s is possible. There are important parallels dealing with this subject matter. between The Merchant and Munday’s Zelauto, so the publication of the latter in 1580 seems to be a) Venetian Criminal Laws a serious problem for a 1579 dating of the play In the Trial scene (4.1.344-52), Portia, thus – but not for Oxfordians. Oxford was employing definitely dooming Shylock to defeat, refers to Munday at that very time (Nelson, 238–9), so the ‘laws of Venice’ which establish that if an Munday’s take on the story was presumably alien attempts the life of ‘any citizen, he will be accessible to him. In any case, the influence may sentenced to the confiscation of his property have been in the reverse direction – we do not which will be given part to the offended and part have to assume that ‘Shakespeare’ did all the to the State. Such law is present in the Criminal copying and adapting. Laws passed by the Senate and other Government If there is any validity in the suggested Boards from the XVI to the XVIII century. This matching of the suitors to historical counterparts, is a major example of the dramatist’s familiarity it is a notable fact that Oxford had a connexion with crime and punishment in the Venetian with each of the four men detailed above. He Republic.1 had letters of introduction to the Holy Roman Emperor Maxillian II for his continental tour in b) The single bond 1575–6 (Nelson, 119); and in 1578 he hoped to Throughout the play the word bond is used serve Don John in some capacity – instead, the with different meanings: Queen wanted him to join Archduke Matthias in the Netherlands (he did neither accoding to (i) obligation, binding agreement. Shylock Nelson, 181–2). When Oxford was in Germany says of Antonio, “Let him look to [attend to, take in 1575, according to the poet George Chapman, care of] his bond,” 3.1.43; Casimir offered a view of his army in the field (ii) what is due as following previous (Oxford declined; Nelson, 126); and Casimir agreement. Shylock to Antonio who has been wrote a letter in autumn 1579 indicating that he declared bankrupt, “I’ll have my bond,” 3.3.4 ; knew about the ‘tennis-court quarrel’ between (iii) forfeit i.e. the thing to be given as a penalty

© De Vere Society 7 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: The Merchant of Venice as stipulated by contract. Shylock to Bassanio in gaberdine” and “did void his rheum upon his Court, “I would have my bond,” 4.1.86; beard”. The Jew’s words do not show any intent (iv) deed (figurative sense), Shylock to Gratiano to be merry. The phrase “in a merry sport” better who is inveighing against the Jew, “Thou canst fits the Jew’s character if it is interpreted as “in my rail the seal from off my bond”, 4.1.138; own sport, to my great joy” and not “just making (v) signed agreement, written document. a joke of it”. In Q1, it is printed in brackets as if it Portia to Shylock, “I pray you let me look upon were an aside (if it were acted out with a wolfish the bond.” “Here t’is,” 4.1.222–3. grin it would certainly express the Jew’s mind). However, in the case of the single bond only Shylock is here thinking that now it is his turn to tentative interpretations and unconvincing laugh, he is looking forward to the pleasure he will suggestions have been made. At the beginning take in Antonio’s downfall; he is sure that Antonio of the play after Shylock has complied with will forfeit, he is well aware of the dangers of the Bassanio’s request to lend Antonio 3,000 ducats sea (1.3.19–23). Brook also quotes an alternative (1.3.1–139), the Jew says to Antonio. “Go with me meaning from the Clarendon edition (1883): “the to a notary, seal me there Your single bond, and (in meaning [of ‘a single bond’] is ‘a bond with your a merry sport) If you repay me not on such a day own signature attached to it, without the names of In such a place, such sum or sums as are Express’d sureties’.” But no sureties were (and are) required in the condition, let the forfeit Be nominated for to stand for the ratification of a bond at a notary’s an equal pound Of your fair flesh, to be cut off in Italian Law. and taken In what part of your body pleaseth me” In fact, the term single has a precise legal (1.3.141–50). meaning: a single bond is (and has been) a particular That is, Shylock wants their verbal agreement contractual obligation by which only one of the to be ratified and asks Antonio to seal the bond contracting parties, the ‘obliger’ (here Antonio), in the presence of a notary; in other words, in binds himself to the other party, the obligee order to protect his rights he must obtain a formal (Shylock), to fulfil an obligation by contract. Only written acknowledgement of a verbal agreement. Antonio is bound to perform a specified action, By the Italian Private Right, a deed is void if it that is, to return the 3,000 ducats. Once Shylock is not validated by a signature. Besides, even has lent the 3,000 ducats, he has no obligation though a verbal agreement is legally valid, still to meet towards Antonio and becomes a creditor its execution is very difficult to prove in Court in by right. Under Italian Law (which is derived from Roman Law and has remained unchanged case the debtor has not met his obligation. Here 2 the dramatist shows himself to be aware that a as concerns its fundamental juridical principles), this is called a contratto unilaterale ‘unilateral deed drawn up in the presence of a notary is the 3 most effective evidence of the execution of an contract’. As the word ‘unilateral’ did not exist in agreement. the English language of the time (it is not attested It appears that the word single has been left in the OED until 1802), Shakespeare used single unexplained. The Arden editor, J. R. Brown which, to him, best defined the nature of this (1955: 29) states: “W. L. Rushton (Shakespeare’s particular contract. Testamentary Language, 1869: 51) distinguished c) The notary between a ‘single bond’ and one with a condition,” but this clarifies neither kind of bond. He adds: Under the Italian legal system from the time of “It has been suggested that Shylock used the the Renaissance, anyone who wants to establish term craftily, to make his condition seem a mere a deed, a will or a written agreement between nothing or ‘merry sport’.” It is true that single may himself and another party has to submit it to a mean ‘mere’ (see O.E.D.) but a ‘mere bond’ does notary, a public officer appointed by the State. The not mean a ‘mere nothing’. Sokol and Sokol (40) duties of the notary include drawing up the deed, state that Shylock has made a mistake since it is signing it on behalf of the parties and storing it. clearly a double bond. From all of Act 1 Scene 3, Shylock, showing his “kindness”[=willingness, it is clear that Shylock means to take revenge on readiness], proposes to go to a notary (1.3.143) Antonio who has “rated” him about his “moneys where Antonio will sign the bond. ‘Notary’ is not a and usances” and has “spit upon his Jewish term used frequently in English Law, in which the

© De Vere Society 8 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: The Merchant of Venice obligations are usually undertaken by solicitors or question the reason for his presence at all. His by commissioners of oaths; Shakespeare does not function in the play is to summon the Court of use the term elsewhere. The reference to a notary Justice, preside over it, “dismiss” it (4.1.103) if in The Merchantonce more proves the dramatist’s for the moment no agreement can be reached familiarity with Italian customs. between the two contending parties, summon a “learned doctor” (104–5) who could help to settle d) The trial (4.1.170–396) the legal dispute, and finally, ratify the judge’s According to the past and present Italian legal statement or use his power to grant the Jew his system, a contract between two or more parties pardon (4.1.365–9). The Duke in the play thus has the force of law.4 A written deed is the most corresponds to the role of the Doge in Venice. It effective means to evidence the contract, especially is a striking parallel which has not been given due if the deed is drawn up by a notary. It proves to be so consideration. effective that, once the parties have acknowledged By the end of the 16th century the authority of that it is not a forgery (Portia to Antonio, “Do the Doge had been limited in order to prevent his you confess the bond?” “I do,” 4.1.178), the law assuming absolute power. As the symbol of the establishes that no witnesses need be examined State, he was entitled to preside over the meetings by the judge in Court to prove its validity. Only of all the Government Boards such as the Maggior what is written in the document must be taken Consiglio (Major Council, composed of about into consideration. The narrow legality of Venetian eight hundred patricians), the Senate, the Council laws (Portia to Shylock: “The Venetian law Cannot of the Ten, and all the other councils, including impugn you as you do proceed,” 4.1.175–6) and the Criminal Courts. Some doges, however, tried Shylock’s strict adherence to what is written in the to act despotically. Girolamo Priuli wrote in his bond (“Is it so nominated in the bond?” 4.1.255) is Diaries in the first decade of the 16th century: usually regarded as a negative element in the play and at the same time a counterpoint to Antonio’s It is common opinion that the prince of Venice generosity; in fact, it simply conforms to the is exclusively a symbolic figure and that he cannot do anything without the approval of relevance of the written document in a legal case. his Counsellors of the Collegio [the Senate In dramatising the trial scene, Shakespeare Cabinet] or of the Councils. On the contrary, appears to show he was acquainted with the fact I wish to affirm that the Venetian prince does that parole evidence (testimonial proof) was (and what he wants [... ] provided that he does not still is) inadmissible in such a legal case: Portia, as offend the honour and dignity of the State.5 Balthazar Doctor of Law, only examines Antonio and Shylock, i.e. the two contenders (“Which is If the Doge opposed a bill, the Maggior Consiglio the merchant here, and which the Jew?” 4.1.171) did not usually pass it. So the proposal would and does not call anyone to give witness. She only undergo modifications until the Doge’s approval replies to Bassanio, because he has intervened was given. Besides, the Doge had the privilege in the hearing to offer to pay “twice the sum”. of proposing bills to all the Councils, except Shakespeare does not make any other character the Senate, without any previous discussion or give evidence: Gratiano speaks just to burst out ratification of the bills themselves, on behalf of with joy, Nerissa to comment briefly on her the Minor Consiglio (the Council formed by the husband’s wish. Salerio is present but in silence. Doge and his six Counsellors).6 The Venetian These are in line with the actual Italian and aristocrats – members of the various councils Venetian legal systems. or boards – did their best to gain and maintain the favour of the Doge, which implied that they e) The Duke. would vote for his proposals trying not to show In the list of characters printed in Q3 (1637), strong opposition. His presence at the sessions the character named “the Duke of Venice” ranks was so essential that in some cases if he was first. He is not one of the main figures in the unable to preside over the meetings owing to his play, being mentioned only a few times before bad health – only Dogi in their 70s or 80s were he appears in the trial scene (4.1). After passing elected, with a few exceptions – the Councils sentence, he leaves the stage. One may even would fall into chaos. In 1567, it was decreed that

© De Vere Society 9 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: The Merchant of Venice the Doge should be present at all the sessions of nationalities living and present there. Those who the Maggior Consiglio.7 The Doge was the first to were not citizens of the Venetian Republic were propose each motion to the Councils and his role foreigners. They lived in their own areas, e.g. in in directing Government decisions and affairs was the Calle dei Bergamaschi, ‘Street of the people not only exacting but also essential to the order from Bergamo’, Calle dei Tedeschi, ‘Street of the and stability of the Republic.8 If he did not take Germans’, Fontego dei Turchi, ‘Warehouse of the part in all the Councils’ sessions including those Turk s’.13 Shylock was a stranger, “an alien” says of the Criminal Courts, it would be because they Portia (4.1.346) and therefore the Duke would were concomitant. not allow any wrong to be done to him. It may appear strange that a Jew, however With regard to knowledge of Italian and rich he might have been, could have appealed Venetian life and legal procedures, the dramatist to the Duke at night-time over to his daughter’s must have had direct experience. One such person elopement with all his gold and jewels and was Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who received his attention. One might think that the spent several months in Venice between January Republic’s supreme authority had more important 1575 and March 1576 (Nelson, 121–141). concerns than redressing a Jew’s wrongs. But history proves that it was the Doge’s duty to Conclusion control the judiciary and administrative offices, and to guarantee the government’s honesty and The Merchant of Venice can be dated between expertise. Doge Marco Barbarigo (d. 1486) 1558, when all the major sources were available established weekly audiences in order to listen to and 1598, when it is mentioned in the Stationers’ complaints about faulty or bad administration.9 Register and by Meres. Leonardo Loredan (Doge from 1501 to his Claims for its having been written in the mid- death in 1521) intervened in civil and penal cases 1590s have little substance. The sundry allusions resolving matters by his own vote, contrary to championed have no great significance: and none what was established by the law.10 The famous provides a starting-point for the whole play. There diarist and chronicler of the Republic, Marino are more allusions to events in the late 1570s and Sanuto, reports that Doge Andrea Gritti (1523– early 1580s, making this the most likely time of 1538) summoned the Forty Judges of the Supreme composition. Court of Appeal for penal cases (Quarantia al Criminal) in order to pass judgement in a case regarding a nobleman’s offensive behaviour.11 In some cases, the Doge acted as an ombudsman, Notes to whom people appealed for redress and justice.12 Therefore Shylock’s application to the Doge for 1. See Leggi Criminali del Serenissimo Dominio help corresponds to the reality of Venetian life. Veneto in un solo Volume raccolte e per pubblico f) Strangers in Venice Decreto ristampate, a cura di Angelo Sabini. Venezia. Pinelli. 1751. The dramatist also shows that he was well 2. Di Marzo, S., Istituzioni di Diritto Romano, informed of the privileges which strangers (that is, Milano, 1946: 347–8; c.f. Luzzatto, G.I., those who did not belong to Venetian aristocracy Sull’origine e sulla natura dell’obbligazione or were not native citizens descended from the romana, Milano, 1934. Romans) enjoyed in Venice. Antonio after his 3. De Ruggiero, R. – Maroi, F., Istituzioni di arrest says to Solanio, “The Duke cannot deny the diritto privato, Milano, Vol. 2 1954: 152–5. A course of law. For the commodity that strangers bilateral contract is the one by which the two contracting parties bind themselves to each have With us in Venice, if it be denied, Will other to perform an obligation, for example, a much impeach the justice of the state, Since that buying and selling contract. C.f. Grosso, G., the trade and profit of the city Consisteth of all Delle obbligazioni in generale, Padova, 1935; nations” (3.3.26–31). Strangers were protected Grosso, G., Sistema Romano del Contratti. and their rights defended by the laws of Venice Torino, 1945. because much of the prosperity of the city lay in the 4. Ferrara, F., Teoria dei Contratti, Napoli, 1940. welfare of “all nations”, that is, of all the different C.f. Ferrara, F, Trattato di diritto civile italiano,

Roma, 1921; Messineo, F., Dottrina generale del Kamen, H. (ed.), Who’s Who in Europe 1450–1750, contratto, Padova, 1948. London & New York, 2000 5. Priuli, G., Diarii, Vol. 2, p. 394. Magri, Noemi, “Places in Shakespeare: Belmont and 6. Maranini, G,. La Costituzione di Venezia, Firenze, Thereabouts” in Great Oxford, R. Malim (ed.), Vol. 2, 1974: 290. Tunbridge Wells: Parapress, 2004: 91–106 7. Archivio di Stato, Venezia, Maggior Consiglio, Mahood, M. M., The Merchant of Venice, Cambridge: Deliberazioni, Liber Angelus Reg. 29, fol. 29v. CUP, 2003 8. Da Mosto, A., / Dogi di Venezia nella vita pubblica Nelson, Alan, Monstrous Adversary. Liverpool, LUP, e privata, Firenze, 1977 2003 9. Malipiero, D., Annali veneti dall’anno 1457 al Ogburn, Charlton, The Mysterious William Shakespeare, 1500, Firenze, Vol. II, 1843–44: 680. Virginia: EPM, 1984 10. Archivio di Stato, Modena. b.ll, cap. 96, letter Read, C., Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth, London, of Bartolomeo Carrari to the Duke of Ferrara, 1960 dated 10th October 1502. Ross, J. C., “Stephen Gosson and The Merchant of 11. Sanuto, M., Diari, 34, 229; 41, 84; 50, 417. Venice Revisited”, Notes & Queries, 50, 2003: 12. Besta, E., Senato Veneziano, Venezia, 1899; c.f. 16–37 Besta, E., Le obbligazioni nella storia del diritto Shaheen, Naseeb, Biblical References in Shakespeare’s italiano, Padova, 1937; Finlay, R., Politics in Plays, Newark: University of Delaware Press, Renaissance Venice, New Brunswick, 1978. 1999 13. Tassini, G., Curiosità veneziane, Venezia. 1988. Small, S. A., “The Jew”, Modern Langauge Review, 26, 1931: 281–7 Sokol, B. J. & M. Sokol, Shakespeare’s Legal Language, Other Cited Works London: Continuum, 2004 Wells, Stanley & Gary Taylor (eds), William Anderson, Mark, “Shakespeare” by Another Name, Shakespeare: The Complete Works, Oxford: New York: Penguin, 2005 OUP, 1986 Barber, C. L., Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy, Princeton: —, William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion, Princeton UP, 1959 Oxford: OUP, 1987 Blakemore Evans, G. (ed.), Riverside Shakespeare, New Wiggins, Martin (ed.) British Drama 1533–1642: York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997 A Catalogue, Volume III 1590–1597. Oxford, Brown, H. F., Studies in the History of Venice, 2 vols, OUP, 2013, 341–6 London: John Murray, 1907 Wilson, J. Dover and A Quiller Couch (eds), The Brown, J. R. (ed.), The Merchant of Venice, London: Merchant of Venice, Cambridge: CUP, 1953 Arden, 1955 Bullough, Geoffrey, Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, vol. 1, London: Macmillan, 1957 Cairncross, A. S., The Problem of Hamlet – A Solution, London, 1936 Chambers, E. K., The Elizabethan Stage, 4 vols, Oxford: Clarendon, 1923 Chambers, E. K., William Shakespeare, A Study of Facts and Problems, 2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon, 1930 Clark, Eva Turner, Hidden Allusions in Shakespeare’s Plays, New York: Kennikat, 1931, rptd 1974 Drakakis, John, The Merchant of Venice, London Arden, forthcoming Farina, William, De Vere as Shakespeare, , Jefferson NC: MacFarland, 2005 Frieda, L., Catherine de Medici, London, 2003 Halio, J. L. (ed.), The Merchant of Venice, Oxford: Oxford, 1993 Hess, W. R. et al., Shakespeare’s Dates, Oxfordian, 2, Portland, 1999 Holland, H. H., Shakespeare, Oxford and Elizabethan Times, London, 1933 Johnson, Samuel, Notes to Shakespeare’s Comedies, 1765, Bibliobazaar, rptd 2007